Dubious Faculty Review

[AJ_Katz]

I have no further advice beyond the wisdom others have shared. However, I'll point out that the candidate's colleagues may feel exactly as you do, but if someone wants to apply for promotion, there is probably no stopping them.

That's what I'm thinking too and we also don't know what the culture of the department is, whether they encourage "testing the waters" as a method of gaining feedback to improve the file.  Perhaps outlining how the file could have been improved would be the most constructive to the candidate and dept. chair, when coupled with a negative review. 

12 years at associate seems like a long time to me.  It could also be that the department chair is pressuring this person to go up for review -- and there could be multiple reasons for that.  Perhaps the college / dean is pressuring the chair to get faculty up or out.  Who knows. 

Frankly, your job is to use your expertise and knowledge to evaluate the impact of the scholarship of this faculty member.  You are the content expert for the discipline, so whatever opinion you hold is, presumably, what they want to hear.  If you are still feeling strong reservation on this, perhaps a phone call to the department chair could help resolve some of your doubts.

[glendower]

Is it possible that the department wants to promote the candidate because of exceptional teaching or service, so the research just has to be adequate? Outside reviews can't speak to teaching or service, except in the most general way. The department's narrative about the candidate ought to give a clue if this is the case.

[mleok]

The person would not be promoted at my place, but maybe this counts as huge productivity at this place?

Whether this counts as huge productivity at the institution in question can easily be answered by looking at the CVs of other full professors there of a similar academic age.

[mleok]

Yes, I'm supposed to read it all. The articles seem to be deep explorations of details of mild importance. The book seems chirpy and directed at a non-scholarly audience. Following the advice of you all, I will cast this all in a mostly neutral, faintly positive kind of way.

To be honest, this is why I would never agree to write a promotion letter for an established academic whose work I'm not already familiar with and positively inclined to, certainly not without substantial compensation. There is nothing worse than being forced to read through piles of mediocre work, and if an academic has had any level of impact on the field that I am competent to comment on, then I should probably have encountered their work at some point in time.

[Puget]

Yes, I'm supposed to read it all.

Wow-- is this typical?
I'm coming up for tenure next year in an article field, and already have 50+ papers, about half from my time as faculty--not bragging, I think that's pretty typical for R1 faculty in my field, especially as most do postdocs first, and work collaboratively. And someone going up for full may often have 100 or more.  I'm hopping the poor external writers aren't going to be asked to read all of that?! Will have to ask a senior colleague about that.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Is it possible that the department wants to promote the candidate because of exceptional teaching or service, so the research just has to be adequate? Outside reviews can't speak to teaching or service, except in the most general way. The department's narrative about the candidate ought to give a clue if this is the case.

I know a long-time associate who is planning to go up for full at my R1. This person has been weighed down with a heavy service load for the last decade and has not been very productive when it comes to research. I can't say whether they deserve full on the basis of research productivity and, as an assistant, nobody is asking my opinion, but I hope they get the promotion since they've done so much for our department.

[Ruralguy]

No one is going to read 50 papers, but they'd probably read the ones with highest impact, and skim others.

Anyway, it seems like we are converging on:

1. make a judgement on work itself
2. make some sort of statement about how your school might see this
3. compare to others of similar career stage and field at that same institution.

I wouldn't worry about whether or not their department or rest of college supports them or not for the promotion. "External" should remain "external."  Don't get involved in someone else's politics.

If you make some sort of misstep or seem heavy handed, then they can just ignore your comments if they so choose.

[mleok]

Let me add the following, if a department truly wishes to find someone to rubber stamp an attempt to railroad a promotion case, one does not generally send the file to a person at a significantly better institution who is not already familiar with and has a favorable view of the candidate's work.

[Ruralguy]

Probably correct, Mleok. All the more reason just to be straightforward and honest with the data available. That might, at best, considering all factors, look "OK," but probably not very good once you look at other profs and standards at your own school, Hegemony. Then again, I have much less experience with this sort of thing than Mleok, so maybe less subtlety is required? Then again, if that were true, then why not say to to the letter writers?

[mleok]

Probably correct, Mleok. All the more reason just to be straightforward and honest with the data available. That might, at best, considering all factors, look "OK," but probably not very good once you look at other profs and standards at your own school, Hegemony. Then again, I have much less experience with this sort of thing than Mleok, so maybe less subtlety is required? Then again, if that were true, then why not say to to the letter writers?

It least when we send out requests for letters, we need to include all the correspondence in the file, so as to ensure that there was no bias in the solicitation or attempts to influence the referees. In particular, that means that what mamselle mentioned, where there was a fairly factual letter, but a more pointed cover letter or email would not work in our system, as they would all have to be included in the file. The usual response to a mediocre promotion file is to refuse to write a letter, but since that ship appears to have sailed, then don't embellish or sugar coat the evaluation. If they wish to promote this individual, then let them choose to do so in spite of the mediocre research record, you have no obligation to partake in such a charade.

[Hegemony]

The usual response to a mediocre promotion file is to refuse to write a letter

How would this work? I wasn't given the file until a couple of months after I'd agreed to the request. And indeed, I agreed to another request about four months ago and haven't seen that file at all yet. The evaluation is due in about six weeks, so it would be very late to try to find someone else. Do other people ask to see the file before agreeing to review it? I have never had anyone offer me the file itself until I had already agreed to review.

[kaysixteen]

Hmmm... no classicist is going to write 50 articles by this time in his professional life, probably most would not come close in their entire careers.   *unless, of course*, those articles are mediocre articles written in crappy journals, and/or articles that are fairly repetitive.   I am still concerned that the focus on x number of articles is unfair, when the real focus should be on objective quality of scholarship...

[Ruralguy]

The number is going to clearly be different for different fields (most obviously book vs. non-book), and the whole point of the post is that it differs among R1's and between R1's and everyone else. But in addition to number, impact (measurable or deduced from number of invited talks, etc.) and along with that, quality, is clearly important.

I've seen people get recommended for awards based almost all on number of articles, and then someone would point out that the awardee in on the editorial board of the journal, as are multiple friends from awardees home dept. (this is just a local award, but still...)

[quasihumanist]

The usual response to a mediocre promotion file is to refuse to write a letter

How would this work? I wasn't given the file until a couple of months after I'd agreed to the request. And indeed, I agreed to another request about four months ago and haven't seen that file at all yet. The evaluation is due in about six weeks, so it would be very late to try to find someone else. Do other people ask to see the file before agreeing to review it? I have never had anyone offer me the file itself until I had already agreed to review.

I know fields differ on this, but I couldn't imagine agreeing to write for someone whom I hadn't already heard of before the request.  I would be worried it would take me too much effort to understand their research, if nothing else.  I suppose if I was asked to write for someone I had not heard of, I might take a brief look at their publication record on a database before declining.

[mleok]

The usual response to a mediocre promotion file is to refuse to write a letter

How would this work? I wasn't given the file until a couple of months after I'd agreed to the request. And indeed, I agreed to another request about four months ago and haven't seen that file at all yet. The evaluation is due in about six weeks, so it would be very late to try to find someone else. Do other people ask to see the file before agreeing to review it? I have never had anyone offer me the file itself until I had already agreed to review.

I know fields differ on this, but I couldn't imagine agreeing to write for someone whom I hadn't already heard of before the request.  I would be worried it would take me too much effort to understand their research, if nothing else.  I suppose if I was asked to write for someone I had not heard of, I might take a brief look at their publication record on a database before declining.

Yes, like you, I can't imagine a promotion candidate in a field I'm competent to render judgement on, whose research is of a level that would allow me to be supportive of the promotion, and whom I've never heard of. By this stage of my career, I would likely have attended one of their talks, seen their application file, refereed or read one of their papers, or reviewed their grant proposals. In the unlikely event that I haven't heard of them, the first thing I would do would be to search for a copy of their CV, and peek at one of their most impactful papers, before agreeing to write a letter.

For a full professor candidate, I think it would be a red flag if I've never heard of the person. It would suggest that the research is not in my area of expertise, or that the candidate is not one that I could support for promotion to full professor, which typically requires a national reputation in one's field at most R1s.